TAILIEUCHUNG - The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics Part 37

The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics Part 37. In the past decade, Cognitive Linguistics has developed into one of the most dynamic and attractive frameworks within theoretical and descriptive linguistics The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics is a major new reference that presents a comprehensive overview of the main theoretical concepts and descriptive/theoretical models of Cognitive Linguistics, and covers its various subfields, theoretical as well as applied. | 330 jordan zlatev However it differs in predicting that all languages use all three frames though for different expressions and to different degrees in discourse. One utterance may express all three FoRs as in 9 which displays the power and flexibility of semantic compositionality. 9 He came up to the second floor. viewpoint-c geocentric object-c . Region Even with an Object-centered FoR and a true landmark languages do not relate the trajector and landmark directly but through a region that can be defined as a configuration of space in relation to that landmark Svorou 1994 Zlatev 1997 . Quite recently Talmy 2000 has used the term conformation for essentially the same notion. Jackendoff 1983 1990 captures the distinction between landmark and region with the terms thing and place two of his semantic primitives stating that for example spatial prepositions such as in express place-functions place in thing . Figure shows the regions lexicalized by a number of Japanese locative nouns which apart from region also specify one or more frame s of reference FoR . Jackendoff holds that the set of such regions or place-functions is universal but this is doubtful. Rather all languages appear to make use of the concept but they can differ substantially both as to the extension of the regions which they express and as to whether they use primarily functional force-dynamic or primarily perceptual geometric properties of the landmark in order to define the region Levinson 1994 . If such variation is granted then arguments against the universal applicability of the concept region see Bowerman 1996 can instead be interpreted as a characterization of its possible variation. For example in Korean loose fit and tight fit designate basic regions while in European languages they do not. Most if not all of the regions that are relevant for spatial semantics correspond to various types of image schemas such as containment and support that have been proposed in the literature . .